Don’t Be Fooled: Tulsi Gabbard Is a Globalist in Sheep’s Clothing.

Gabbard has grown in popularity within right-wing circles. The 38-year-old has ties to the globalist Council on Foreign Relations. Gabbard supports the Green New Deal and holds extreme progressive views on immigration, healthcare, abortion, and other issues

I hate to be the one to take away people’s heroes. The kid who sees through the emperor’s new clothes usually isn’t welcome at court.

But I’m willing to take a gamble that in the age of Trump, speaking the truth and “telling it like it is” are still considered political virtues. If I see a snake lurking in the grass, it’s up to me to sound the alarm — even if it means ruining everybody’s picnic.

With that preamble, let it be known that I’m unequivocally here to pour rain all over everyone’s Tulsi Gabbard parade.

Gabbard has emerged as something of a hero among many conservative and right-wing political observers. She’s seen as the “moderate,” “centered” voice among a field of progressive extremists vying for the Democratic presidential nomination.

She’s the “non-interventionist” who will bravely stand up to the military-industrial complex that has infiltrated both parties, putting America first and keeping our young people from dying in any more unnecessary (and illegal) wars.

A Drudge instant poll taken right after the first Democratic debate last week crowned the Hawaii congresswoman the event’s winner.

Of course, both of those outlets have largely conservative audiences, which makes them virtually irrelevant when it comes to gauging performance in a Democratic primary.

Claiming those two polls to be meaningful at this point in the race would be like giving credence in 2016 to a HuffPost poll showing Trump in last place.

Indeed, surveys that actually look at Democrats suggest Gabbard’s campaign won’t be going very far. Most put Gabbard’s support at or below one percent.

What the Drudge and Washington Examiner polls do tell us is that Republicans have taken a liking to the 38-year-old military veteran — even if Democrats couldn’t care less.

Right-wing outlets and commentators have been quick to jump on the Tulsi Train.

Pat Buchanan, an anti-establishment legend who can rightly claim to be a “Trump Before Trump,” penned an article in which he called on President Trump to replace his hawkish National Security Advisor John Bolton with Gabbard.

“If she makes it into the second round, Gabbard could become the catalyst for the kind of globalist vs. nationalist debate that broke out between Trump and Bush Republicans in 2016, a debate that contributed to Trump’s victory at the Cleveland convention and in November,” Buchanan mused wistfully.

Ann Coulter, who has never been shy about breaking with the GOP’s establishment wing — particularly on the issue of immigration — cheered Gabbard on during the debate when the lawmaker fact-checked Ohio Congressman Tim Ryan over his claim that the Taliban, rather than Al Qaeda, was responsible for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Go, Tulsi! (I’m watching the debate on delay. She just attacked Ryan’s “engaged” in Afghanistan speech.)

Breitbart has run a number of pro-Gabbard pieces, including one entitled “Tulsi Gabbard on the Border: ‘Yes, This Is a Crisis’” (which, when read, reveals that Gabbard says nothing about reducing migration, building a wall, or securing the border) and three recent articles decrying alleged bias against Gabbard by the organizers of the Democratic debates.

And, as Breitbart notes, even libertarian champion Ron Paul has called Gabbard “good on foreign policy.”

Other bonafides typically pointed to by conservative Gabbard fans include:

• Voting with Republicans in favor of an “extreme vetting” bill for Syrian and Iraqi refugees

• Stating that she doesn’t want to pursue impeachment proceedings against President Trump

In conservative circles, these have effectively made Gabbard the “only sane” candidate among her Democratic colleagues.

But is Congresswoman Gabbard all that her admirers make her out to be? Or is the anti-war, anti-establishment persona merely a veneer hiding a globalist agenda?

Smoking Gun? The CFR Connection

One of the most alarming details to fly under the radar in discussions of Congresswoman Gabbard is her association with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

During my recent analysis of the first Democratic debate, as well as during a phone interview I gave for The New American’s Top Headline YouTube program, I brought attention to Gabbard’s membership with the CFR, per the organization’s own website.

Just a few days later, however, Gabbard’s name was removed from CFR’s online membership roster.

Interestingly, when I wrote my article and did the interview last week, Gabbard’s Wikipedia page included a mention of her CFR membership in the first paragraph.

A look at the Tulsi Gabbard Wikipedia page’s revision history shows that the edit removing the sentence about the congresswoman’s CFR membership was made on July 2.

The user who made the change left a note saying “Gabbard does not appear to be a member of this think tank as pointed out on Talk.”

“Talk” refers to the discussion area for Wikipedia users making edits to a given page. Indeed, the “Talk” area for Gabbard’s Wikipedia page has a section dedicated to her CFR membership, entitled “Smear: She is not a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.”

As seen above, one Wikipedia user apparently confused the Council on Foreign Relations with the House Foreign Affairs Committee, writing: “She is a member of the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs which is her job and not a think tank.”

The first comment in the CFR discussion reads “There is a cite attatched [sic] leading to this memberlist [sic],” followed by the link to the CFR website’s member roster page. The editor who left the comment concludes, “She is not on there!”

While it’s true that Gabbard’s name does not appear on the CFR’s member list presently, it was on there as recently as the first weekend in July.

If you go to the Internet Archive (Wayback Machine) for the url www.cfr.org/membership/roster, the two most recent archived captures of the webpage are from July 2 and June 28 of this year.

What that tells us is that Gabbard’s name was removed from the CFR membership list sometime between June 28 and July 2 — so either on Sunday, June 30 or Monday, July 1.

One of the Wikipedia editors commented in the Talk that Gabbard’s was a five-year membership. The editor brushed aside concerns over CFR membership as being the stuff of “conspiracy theorists” such as “Alex Jones.”

She discussed it on Niko House's show, which you can find on youtube. She was appointed to a five year term, which has expired. Contrary to Alex Jones et al., the CFR invites prominent people in foreign relations who represent different views. That's why it reads like a who's who of foreign relations and conspiracy theorists can connect the dots and assume it is part of a massive plot for world domination. But thanks for noticing it and removing the outdated information.

The comment referred to the YouTube program Mi Casa es Su Casa, hosted by Niko House.

It was on that program’s May 29, 2019 episode (beginning at the 17:24 mark) that Gabbard responded to a question by House about her involvement with CFR.

House asked:

So, we’ve been getting a lot of questions about the fact that you used to belong to Council on Foreign Relations and you might still belong there, I haven’t checked. And they want to know, like, is there a reason, you know — are you still part of it? If you are, do you plan on trying to sway them? Because they’ve been known to work in conjunction with our intelligence community that you obviously are so critical of.

To which Gabbard replied:

The Council on Foreign Relations — I’m looking to engage with different people who are working in this area [international affairs]. I was basically what they call a ‘term member’ for the Council on Foreign Relations, which is for people who are under the age of 40 and it lasts for five years.

And they have different things that they do to bring people into these conversations. Host speakers and things like that. Brought in some speakers to Congress in dealing with North Korea and through that process heard a very diverse set of views from fellows and different people who are part of that organization, some of whom shared my worldview. Many others who do not.

CFR’s term member program is open to individuals between the ages of 30 and 36. Candidates for term membership must be nominated in writing by a current CFR member and seconded by two or three other members.

According to Gabbard, her membership term began after she became a member of Congress, which would likely mean 2013. While she didn’t say when her five years concluded, it’s interesting that she was still listed as a CFR member until a couple days after my Top Headline conversation with Christian Gomez.

Outside of the Niko House interview, the congresswoman has spoken little about her affiliation with CFR. But a press release from her official website states that in 2016, Gabbard hosted a CFR briefing in Honolulu, during which she spoke about Hawaii’s strategic importance and “responded to questions from the council members regarding issues of war and peace, energy, infrastructure, religious freedom, and more.”

Why Gabbard’s CFR Ties Should Raise Concerns

The interviewers at Mi Casa es Su Casa brought up CFR’s links to the intelligence community. Other left-of-center observers say their concern is that CFR promotes foreign wars — something that runs counter to Gabbard’s non-interventionism.

On a YouTube video about Gabbard and the CFR published by the left-wing channel New Progressive Voice, one user wrote:

The CFR are probably the most powerful and war mongering cartel on the planet — they have pushed for strategic regime change and war for decades. Wherever US wars are the CFR members are lurking in the wings.

But one user defended CFR by citing articles in its magazine, Foreign Affairs, that have been critical of “US imperialism.”

And another user argued that Gabbard’s five-year membership in the “pro-war” CFR is nothing to worry about, that the Hawaii lawmaker’s record of “anti-war” policy positions demonstrates that “warmongers” have no control over her.

Where these comments miss the mark is in their misunderstanding of the Council on Foreign Relations’ goals.

Observers such as these YouTube users believe that CFR is a warmongering/Neocon think tank, that its chief mission is involving America in empire-building wars of conquest.

Thus, when they see Tulsi Gabbard speaking out against military adventurism, they either (a) figure that she did not succumb to the influence of CFR’s warmongers or (b) revise their perception of CFR and imagine that it must be what its members claims — nothing more than a meeting ground where intellectuals and public figures of diverging ideologies (including hawks and doves) come together to harmlessly bounce ideas off each other.

The problem is that those who see it that way fail to grasp CFR’s real agenda. It isn’t simply endless wars, although fomenting war is certainly one of its tactics.

The end goal of the Council on Foreign Relations is world government.

By world government, we mean a global political system to which all nations are subject, a system in which countries surrender their autonomy, independence, and sovereignty to a centralized world authority.

CFR publications, including Foreign Affairs, have repeatedly made their intention clear.

A 1944 CFR publication entitled “American Public Opinion and Post-war Security Commitments” complained of Americans’ commitment to national sovereignty:

The sovereignty fetish is still so strong in the public mind, that there would appear to be little chance of winning popular assent to American membership in anything approaching a super-state organization.

A Foreign Affairs article from 1974 entitled “The Hard Road to World Order” described how to go about eroding American independence:

An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.

And a December 1922 issue read,

There is going to be no peace or prosperity for mankind so long as it remains divided into fifty or sixty independent states.… There is going to be no steady progress in civilization … until some kind of international system is created…. The real problem today is that of world government.

In other words, the greatest work before us is that of creating a centralized world government. Notice that the article’s author is not calling for war. On the contrary, his alleged desire is to create world-wide “peace” and “prosperity.” What is the solution he and CFR present in order to ensure peace and prosperity? World government, of course.

According to CFR dogma, there will never be peace on earth as long as nations retain their independence. Only a world government will save us all from killing each other.

This doctrine found perfect expression in the words of banker (and CFR member) James Warburg when he testified before the U.S. Senate in 1950 regarding Senate Resolution 56, one of several resolutions then being considered in order to strengthen the United Nations and effectively make it the governing body of an international union or world government.

“The past 15 years of my life have been devoted almost exclusively to studying the problem of world peace and, especially, the relation of the United States to these problems,” Warburg said. “These studies led me, 10 years ago, to the conclusion that the great question of our time is not whether or not one world can be achieved, but whether or not one world can be achieved by peaceful means. We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest.”

That is the heart of the Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR’s end is world government. The means are whatever gets them there. The means can be war or peace, conflict or diplomacy, consent or conquest.

Indeed, the proponents of world government long ago learned that peace — and the desire for peace — are much more effective for bringing about world government than open conquest.

That is, by fostering fear of war and all its ramifications — astronomical death tolls, ruined cities, collapsed civilizations — globalists tap into the average person’s desire for peace in order to frame their world government program as the only viable solution, as the only possible way to avoid the devastation of war.

That angle, that binary choice of world government or world war (and world destruction), was the one James Warburg not only offered the Senate, but offered to a country gripped by constant fear of nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

“Today we are faced with a divided world — its two halves glowering at each other across the iron curtain,” he continued. “The world's two superpowers — Russia and the United States — are entangled in the vicious circle of an arms race, which more and more preempts energies and resources sorely needed to lay the foundations of enduring peace. We are now on the road to eventual war — a war in which the conqueror will emerge well-nigh indistinguishable from the vanquished.

“The United States does not want this war, and most authorities agree that Russia does not want it. Indeed, why should Russia prefer the unpredictable hazards of war to a continuation of here present profitable fishing in the troubled waters of an uneasy armistice? Yet both the United States and Russia are drifting — and, with them, the entire world — toward the abyss of atomic conflict.”

Atomic conflict. That was the great peril Warburg claimed faced the planet. What course of action did he recommend?

“Mr. Chairman, I am here to testify in favor of Senate Resolution 56, which, if concurrently enacted with the House, would make the peaceful transformation of the United Nations into a world federation the avowed aim of United States policy. The passage of this resolution seems to me the first prerequisite toward the development of an affirmative American policy which would lead us out of the valley of death and despair.”

According to Warburg, mankind’s only hope lay in turning the UN into a “world federation,” another way of saying world government. And for the banker, the establishment of that “world federation” should have been the “avowed aim of United States policy.”

(James Warburg, by the way, was the son of Paul Warburg, a founding CFR member and director, prominent investment banker, and Federal Reserve advocate who served on the Fed’s board.)

At the time, during the height of the Cold War, the road to world government meant not only eroding American sovereignty but also spreading socialism within the United States in order to make it more compatible with the U.S.S.R., to which it would be joined.

As H. Rowan Gaither, CFR member and president of the Ford Foundation, told congressional investigator Norman Dodd during the Reece hearings in the U.S. House in 1953, the country’s leading tax-exempt foundations and government insiders wanted “to so alter life in the United States that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.”

It was the Wall Street insiders who precipitated America’s entry into World War I who also went on to create the Council on Foreign Relations.

It was CFR-linked agents on both sides of the Atlantic who got the United States into World War II.

The CFR has been behind many of America’s major wars in the 20th and 21st centuries.

But, again, war itself was never the end goal. It was simply a useful tool for the CFR’s higher purpose.

After having gone through two world wars in the space of just thirty years and faced with the ever-present menace of nuclear annihilation, Americans were primed to get behind the new United Nations.

Thus, we see why it is no contradiction for CFR to have both hawks and doves in its ranks. The organization’s pro-war and anti-war members may claim and appear to be on opposite sides, but they’re ultimately serving the same end — albeit by different means.

The hawks try to build a world empire through bloodshed, often under the guise of “international peacekeeping.” The doves try to stop the bloodshed through their own “international peacekeeping” — resolutions and accords formulated by unelected global bodies such as the UN.

The CFR claims to recruit individuals from diverse ideologies (liberals, conservatives, socialists, libertarians). But curiously, the one thing these “diverse” minds can always agree on is that, no matter the problem, the solution involves bringing together the “international community.”

This is why being “anti-war” or “non-interventionist” isn’t enough. A public figure may say they’re against invading other countries. They may say they’re for peace. But how do they plan to achieve peace? By selling out our national sovereignty in favor of empowering international “peacekeeping” entities such as the UN or NATO?

If so, then they’re playing right into the hands of the pro-world government elites who run the CFR.

Tulsi’s Crypto-Globalism

For all the hype about Gabbard’s “moderate” and “reasonable” policies, a look at her stances reveals her to be just as radical as the majority of her fellow Democratic presidential hopefuls.

Furthermore, Gabbard’s policies on key issues come right out of the globalist playbook. That is, they are designed to subtly push America further down the path to world government.

Tulsi — Green New Deal Warrior

Gabbard is, as her own website puts it, “a top leader in fighting for urgent action to address climate change.”

“I support the carbon neutrality goals of the Green New Deal and the awareness it has brought across the country on the critical issues of energy independence and the climate crisis,” Gabbard has said.

The Green New Deal is the latest spin put on the effort to bring America under the heel of a totalitarian, Big Brother socialist state with the power to tell us what we can eat, what type of car we can drive, and what job we’re allowed to have.

As The New Americanhas detailed, The Green New Deal is nothing more than a rebranding of the UN’s Agenda 21, a “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society” that seeks to completely restructure government, economy, and social institutions with the purported aim of combatting climate change and establishing “sustainable development.”

The proponents of world government love the climate-change issue because it gives them the perfect justification for eliminating national sovereignty. Individual countries can’t be trusted to regulate their own carbon emissions, they argue. We need a global regulatory body with the power to keep every country in line!

Climate change hysteria also justifies totalitarianism. Since every human action can be said to affect the environment in some way, all human activity must then be subject to government control in order to prevent mankind from destroying the planet.

Gabbard may claim to be against empire-building through violent means. But so long as she promotes big government climate change policy, she is supporting empire-building by peaceable means.

And support it she does.

Gabbard criticized President Trump when pledged to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement that would have cost the county $2.5 trillion in GDP by 2035.

“President Trump’s decision today to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, making us just one of three countries in the world not to participate, is short-sighted and irresponsible,” she stated. “Without global action to drastically curb carbon pollution, climate change threatens the safety and security of the planet, especially in places like Hawaiʻi where we are already experiencing its devastating effects.”

The 38-year-old lawmaker has gone beyond merely criticizing the current administration. She’s proposed ambitious environmental legislation of her own.

In 2017, Gabbard sponsored the OFF Fossil Fuels Act, which was endorsed by groups such as Progressive Democrats of America, the Climate Justice Alliance, and Blue Planet Foundation.

Gabbard’s bill would have mandated that by 2035, “100% of electricity must be generated from clean energy resources,” “100% of vehicle sales from manufacturers must be zero-emission vehicles,” and “100% of train rail lines and train engines must be electrified.”

The bill would also have prohibited federal permits for new major fossil-fuel projects after 2018. And, despite the fact that the United States is now the world’s leading oil producer and poised to become the top oil exporter, it would have “prohibit[ed] exports of domestically produced crude oil and natural gas, including liquefied natural gas.”

In short, we could kiss the American oil industry goodbye in Tulsi Gabbard’s ideal world.

Tulsi — Open Borders Advocate

Gabbard’s take on border and migration issues is far from what any conservative or patriot would consider “moderate” or “sane.” The Hawaii congresswoman’s immigration platform is the same open-borders agenda being pushed by most of her party.

“The Trump Administration’s use of children as pawns in the immigration debate is despicable and must end now,” Gabbard is quoted as saying on her website.

What Gabbard and other open-borders advocates really mean by keeping families together is to keep them together by releasing them into the country, i.e. catch-and-release.

Many foreign children have been brought to the border by adults feigning to be their parents precisely because would-be migrants are hoping to take advantage of the compassion-driven catch-and-release policy.

That is, they’re counting on being released with the minors into the country because of our government’s fear of inhumanely separating families. In short, children have become get-into-America-free cards.

Sadly, the children brought illegally into the country often become the victims of sexual abuse and gang violence.

Gabbard has co-sponsored the Keep Families Together Act, which would greatly restrict immigration officials’ ability to separate families and children, including requiring authorization from an “independent licensed child welfare expert.”

The bill “limits the prosecution of asylum seekers” (even though most of the migrants now attempting to receive asylum admission into the country are really economic migrants) and stipulates that “an agency may not remove a child from a parent or legal guardian solely for the policy goals of deterring migration to the United States or of promoting immigration law compliance.”

It also includes language establishing that “detention is not in the best interests of families and children.”

If detention is not in the best interests of “families and children” and families must not be separated, then how are they to be kept together? By releasing the whole family into the country — essentially creating an open border in which anyone is allowed into the United States so long as they come as a “family.”

Gabbard, who supports the DREAM Act, has also sponsored the DREAMer Information Protection Act, which “prohibits DHS’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) from being used for immigration enforcement proceedings,” along with the BRIDGE Act, which codifies President Obama’s DACA amnesty program.

Additionally, although Gabbard has supported stronger vetting for refugees from Syria and Iraq and called for an end to regime-change wars that create refugees in the first place, she has spoken out fiercely against efforts to halt refugee flow into America.

We should not ban refugees from our country. But we must address the root cause that is making people flee their homes— regime-change wars.

The problem with Gabbard’s position is that, whether the United States involves itself in other countries’ problems or not, there will always be conflict somewhere in the world (especially in regions such as Africa and the Middle East), and there will always be interests here trying to bring mass numbers of civilians from those warring nations over as refugees.

Somali-American Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) is exactly what you get when you transform a nation’s demographics via mass migration and deliberately placed refugees.

Mass migration is one of the greatest weapons used by those who want to create world government, because there is no faster way of destroying national autonomy than by erasing national identity — and you erase national identity by drowning it out in a wave of “multicultural” immigration.

Once again, Tulsi Gabbard is towing the globalist line.

Healthcare

Gabbard supports Medicare-for-All, which by one estimate would increase government spending by $32.6 trillion over the next 10 years. The tax increases needed to cover the cost would be higher than anything America has ever seen.

And that doesn’t even consider the social costs. With government holding the purse strings over medical care under a Medicare-for-All system, patient privacy and choice would go out the window.

Of course, that’s exactly what the elites pushing total government want.

Can Voters Take Tulsi on Her Word?

Gabbard has gained a reputation for opposing endless, purposeless wars. The problem is those who want war always find a way to sell theirs as purposeful and limited in time.

Should Americans allow Gabbard’s persuasive non-interventionist rhetoric to outweigh concerns related to her CFR ties and support for hallmark globalist causes?

As the proverbial saying goes, talk is cheap.

Woodrow Wilson used the campaign slogan “He kept us out of war” (referring to World War I) to get reelected, only drag the country (under false pretenses) into conflict as soon as he had his second term secured.

During the 1940 presidential election, Franklin Roosevelt swore to high heaven that one of his chief goals was keeping the United States out of the war in Europe.

“I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars,” he said in October in 1940.

And on November 3: “The first purpose of our foreign policy is to keep our country out of war.”

But FDR was planning to take America into the war before the bombs fell on Pearl Harbor — and took several steps to move the country in that direction.

In August 1941, for example, Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill held their Atlantic Conference, in which the American president committed the U.S. as a partner to Britain in a virtual declaration of war aims.

A month earlier, the Japanese assets in the U.S. were frozen, followed by similar actions by Great Britain and the Netherlands East Indies. This amounted to a commercial blockade that escalated the probability of war between America and Japan.

And in September, Roosevelt ordered American warships to shoot at sight at German submarines.

Moreover, Roosevelt knew that an attack on Pearl Harbor was imminent, but took measures to conceal that fact from commanders in Hawaii in order to use the tragedy as grounds to take the country to war.

The point is that when past leaders’ anti-war language has proven to be nothing more than empty words, why should we take Gabbard’s seriously when her ties indicate she’ll also toss her campaign promises aside the moment she enters the White House?

Tulsi’s Ever-changing Mind

Making it even harder to give Congresswoman Gabbard the benefit of the doubt is her drastic change of opinion on major issues.

She used to support traditional marriage and was a critic of same-sex marriage and civil unions. Now she’s an “LGBTQ” advocate.

Gabbard was once pro-life. Now she’s a rank-and-file pro-choicer who wants federal funding for abortion and even voted against a ban on abortion after 20 weeks.

Has Gabbard genuinely forsaken once-correct positions on social issues in favor of prevailing Social Justice Warrior dogma? Or is she going with the flow in order to gain favor with the increasingly liberal Democratic base?

Neither possibility speaks well of her. Whether she’s a conformist or an opportunist, the end result is the same — Tulsi Gabbard won’t be defending America’s moral foundation.

If it’s a matter of bad judgment, what else can you expect from someone who endorsed socialist Bernie Sanders for president in 2016?

In all likelihood, Gabbard is following in the footsteps of Obama, who (among many other broken promises) claimed on the campaign trail to oppose gay marriage and “dumb wars” only to oversee the legalization of the former and the expansion of the latter.

In short, Gabbard has all the signs of being another Obama — a typical politician masquerading as an agent for change.

Conclusion: Why Tulsi?

The question is: Why is the CFR-approved Tulsi Gabbard being pushed in conservative circles?

There’s no way of knowing for sure. There are a number of ways in which someone such as Gabbard can prove useful to the Deep State.

For instance, the establishment doubtless realizes that the odds are in favor of President Trump’s reelection in 2020. So they’re giving Gabbard exposure and name recognition in preparation for a 2024 bid, when the pendulum swing will give Democrats the advantage over Republicans.

In the 2024 race, a Gabbard ticket could increase Democrats’ general election chances by being a candidate who has already won over many conservatives — paving the way to victory in close battleground states.

Or they may try to employ that tactic this time around by placing her in the Vice-Presidential slot (Gabbard’s polling makes it unlikely she’ll be at the top of the ticket this time around).

Or they may prop Gabbard up for an important cabinet position in a future administration. Her cross-party appeal could see her selected as a secretary of state/defense or national security advisor in either a Democrat or Republican White House.

But the above will only happen so long as people keep falling for the ruse. Of course, many will read this article and continue to proclaim Tulsi Gabbard the best thing since sliced bread.

Can Americans dodge another Obama-sized bullet before it’s too late? Hopefully there are still enough citizens willing to speak the truth about the Emperor’s clothes.

Photo: AP Images

Luis Miguel is a marketer and writer whose journalistic endeavors shed light on the Deep State, the immigration crisis, and the enemies of freedom. Follow his exploits on Facebook, Twitter, Bitchute, and at luisantoniomiguel.com.

Please review our Comment Policy before posting a comment

Thank you for joining the discussion at The New American. We value our readers and encourage their participation, but in order to ensure a positive experience for our readership, we have a few guidelines for commenting on articles. If your post does not follow our policy, it will be deleted.

No profanity, racial slurs, direct threats, or threatening language.

No product advertisements.

Please post comments in English.

Please keep your comments on topic with the article. If you wish to comment on another subject, you may search for a relevant article and join or start a discussion there.

Comments that we consider abusive, spammy, off-topic, or harassing will be removed.

If our filtering system detects that you may have violated our policy, your comment will be placed in a queue for moderation. It will then be either approved or deleted. Once your comment is approved, it will then be viewable on the discussion thread.

If you need to report a comment, please flag it and it will be reviewed. Thank you again for being a valued reader of The New American.